Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

New books in October

Authors and/or publishers kindly sent me these new books this month:

The Virtues:  Justice edited by Mark LeBar (Oxford University Press, 2018).

The Evil Within:  Why We Need Moral Philosophy by Diane Jeske (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages:  Science, Rationalism, and Religion by T.M. Rudavsky (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, Volume 3 edited by John Gardner, Leslie Green & Brian Leiter (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Law as Artifact edited by Luka Burazin, Kenneth Himma & Corrado Roversi (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Phenomenology in France:  A Philosophical and Theological Introduction by Steven DeLay (Routledge, 2019).

Pleasure:  A History edited by Lisa Shapiro (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Planning, Time, and Self-Governance:  Essays in Practical Rationality by Michael E. Bratman (Oxford University Press, 2018).

The Evolution of Moral Progress:  A Biocultural Theory by Allen Buchanan & Russell Powell (Oxford University Press, 2018).

What is Philosophy For? by Mary Midgley (Bloomsbury Academic, 2018).

Stoicism:  A Very Short Introduction by Brad Inwood (Oxford University Press, 2018).

How Fascism Works:  The Politics of US and THEM by Jason Stanley (Random House, 2018).

The Birth of Ethics:  Reconstructing the Role and Nature of Morality by Philip Pettit, edited by Kinch Hoekstra with Michael Tomasello (Oxford University Press, 2018).

APA members should also nominate Shane Wilkins for the positions mentioned below

Dr. Wilkins (reachable at wilkins-at-fordham-dot-edu) kindly gave permission to share the following; I hope one or more current APA members will also nominate him (today!), since those are apparently more effective than self-nominations:

I just nominated myself to serve on two APA committees: the Non-Academic Careers Committee and the Public Philosophy Committee. I would welcome your endorsement of my candidacy for either position when the election rolls around. What I would like to do is briefly introduce myself and my qualifications for these positions.

• PhD Philosophy 2018 from Fordham University. AOS Medieval Philosophy, Metaphysics. I’ve published papers in Synthese, the Journal of the APA, History of Philosophy Quarterly, and other reasonable, peer-reviewed venues. I have presented multiple papers on the main program of the APA.
• I continue to be an active researcher and publisher.
• I have held a number of paid positions as a philosopher: graduate teaching fellow, adjunct, postdoc. Pretty much everything except a tenure-track professor. I did a lot of that published research while teaching a 4/4 to make enough money to support my family while living in the Bronx.
• In June 2017, I decided to take a prestigious management training program with the Federal government. I’m currently a Management Analyst with the US Department of Agriculture. This program has given me an opportunity to build a diverse portfolio quite quickly.
• My duties have included a variety of data collection and analysis tasks, as well as operations research, software development, contract management, as well as budget formulation and execution.
• I also have some leadership experience in the non-profit through serving as a Precinct Chair with the Tarrant County Democratic Party in Texas. 

I have nominated myself for these positions because I believe the APA needs to focus its resources and efforts on promoting the goods of the discipline and its practitioners. That means working to articulate to the public as well as state and US lawmakers the importance of philosophy for our democracy. It also means working to help philosophers find careers that let them use their abilities for the public good while providing for themselves. That is why I have nominated myself for these two committees in particular.

• As a philosopher/civil servant I have practical experience using the knowledge, skills, and ability I cultivated as a researcher and writer to help leaders make impactful, data-driven decisions. Further, I will bring political savvy and at least some experience dealing with elected officials to the Public Philosophy Committee that will help the committee build bridges with state and Federal government.
• Further, as a ‘nobody' with an off-brand PhD who clawed and scratched his way through five years on the job market, I think I may be in a good position to help the Non-Academic Careers Committee create resources and disseminate information that will help job-seekers find rewarding, meaningful careers where their philosophical skills will be productive assets instead of just biographical curiosities.

As a member of either committee I would work to orient that committee’s agenda around the good of discipline and the membership and push the association to keep those committees agendas at the top of its priorities.

Allow me to mention one final qualification that I think is important. I have no personal or professional reason to curry favor with anyone at the APA. There is literally zero impact, good or bad, anyone associated with the APA could conceivably have on me, my family, or my career. Independence will allow my professional judgement to remain unclouded.

Want to write a computer science paper?

Now you can!  (Maybe computer science isn't a Wissenschaft?)

(Thanks to Joe Hatfield for the pointer.)

Trump can not revoke birthright citizenship by executive order, nor can Congress by statute

A quick reality check on the latest viciousness to come out of the mouth of the deranged monster-child.

(You need to delete the "s" from https to get this link to work--amazingly, Typepad won't let me change it.  Here is the link:

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2018/10/can-trump-eliminate-birthright.html )

UPDATE:  A statement from leading constitutional law scholars about this malevolent nonsense.

 

The invisible migrant caravans

A useful bit of humane reporting about migrants.

The peverse and pointless elitism at the core of the APA leadership

A senior philosopher writes:

I've been a long-time APA member and I have to say that my membership was an overall plus to my career.  For example, a co-author was someone I just happened to meet in an elevator in Chicago, and we became life-long friends and collaborators.  But I have to say that Mohan Matthen's comment:  "Election would, of course, depend on name recognition." depressed me.  I have been nominated on several occasions for committee work, and even self-nominated a couple of times.  I never was selected of course, because, well, I'm a relative nobody.   Still, I had some demonstrable chops, and wanted to contribute.  But it didn't happen because I had no real "name recognition" in the profession.  No way I want to get into the APA fray now though.  But I think there are tons of great people--not with "name recognition" though--who could be solid contributors to correct the real plight that the APA is currently in.  Effective participation in the workings of the APA should not be some sort of American Philosophical Idol contest, especially since they take every minion's money for dues and passage, but only allow "stars" to steer the ship.  Perhaps mere nomination by name is not enough--maybe there should be a process not unlike hiring--with CVs and "serving statements"--that ought be reviewed and considered somehow--with a form of affirmative action for good people who aren't big names.  Yes, more work for some people, but maybe also fairer representation for us nobodies.

This is in no way a criticism of Professor Matthen, who simply described, alas correctly, the existing state of affairs.   So let me encourage more "nobodies" to self-nominate and to reach out to me if you're on board with reforming the APA.  Perhaps the "nobodies" might even be more focused on the crucial issues and core functions than the current leadership?

On the collapse of literary studies as a discipline in the 1980s and after

English professor Michael Clune (Case Western) comments at length (in an article behind the CHE paywall, alas [UPDATE:  a CHE editor kindly sent along a non-paywalled link, which will be good for a week]); an excerpt:

The literature program — especially at the most prestigious universities — became a kind of twilight zone. No longer a discipline, it was an entire bizarro world, in which every aspect of human culture and thought could be confidently explained with the theoretical tools wielded by star professors. But when the students left the seminar room, the faculty office, the literary journal, that world ended, those stars winked out.

I vividly remember my own rude awakening. Each year Johns Hopkins held a competition in which graduate students would submit ideas for a course. The courses would be evaluated by a board of professors from different fields, and the winner would get to teach it. I walked into the interview with my syllabus for a course that purported to explain urban decay, novels, the nature of free-market economics, and the political history of the 1970s in one brilliant synthesis. My interviewers — professors in political science and history — greeted my ideas with withering skepticism. I cited illustrious figures in my field. To my horror, my interlocutors were unimpressed. They actually asked difficult questions about the reasoning behind the stars’ dicta. All I could do was repeat the hallowed formulas about representation and language with decreasing confidence as I realized the heroes of literature-department economic, political, and historical thought had no currency here. Later one of my English professors advised me to forget the incident. "They don’t understand our discipline," he said.

The vampiric Avital Ronell flourished in this disciplinary twilight zone....Books like her own Crack Wars (University of Nebraska Press, 1992) — in which the obscurity of the prose occasionally parts to reveal an astonishing ignorance of the most basic facts about addiction — were presented as the new models. The eradication of disciplinary limits opened the way to unlimited tyranny. [Jonathan] Kramnick defines a discipline as "a body of skills, methods, and norms able to sustain internal discussions and do explanatory work." But in Ronell’s department, the star theorist’s words became the sole standard. Students were expected to cite Ronell or her master Derrida in every essay. And as the famous emails starkly reveal, the boundary separating the life of the student from the total domination of the totally liberated professor dissolved....

Chicago's Martha Nussbaum wins this year's Berggruen Prize in Philosophy

Announcement here.  Past winners are Charles Taylor and Onora O'Neill.

Nominate Justin Kalef (Rutgers) for an APA leadership position

A propos this, Professor Kalef has expressed interest; would some APA members please nominate him for one or more position (nominees must then accept or decline a nomination).

UPDATE:  As philosopher Mohan Matthen (Toronto) points out, self-nomination is also permitted.   So any folks who share some of the cooncerns about the APA we have been discussing should feel free to self-nominate and then reach out afterwards.

'Foundation for Excellence in Higher Education': what's the story?

A philosopher elsewhere writes:

I would be grateful to read any comments from your readers on the impact that programs sponsored by "The Foundation for Excellence in Higher Education"(https://excellenceinhighered.org) have had on campuses -- and especially on Philosophy Departments. Campus institutes sponsored by this Foundation are described as concerned with "education for a good life," "classical intellectual traditions", "human flourishing", "enduring principles of reason that underlie intellectual inquiry", and so forth. The Foundation sponsors institutes closely connected to Berkeley, Stanford, Oxford, Harvard, Chicago, Penn, Texas at Austin, Yale, and elsewhere. Any information about how these programs have affected faculty appointments, undergraduate curricula, and campus climate would be especially welcome.'

Judging from the faculty affiliates at several of these universities, it seems clear this Foundation has a right-wing and religious tilt.  But beyond that superficial observation, I know nothing about it.  Readers?

Journals that publish the best work in moral/political philosophy, poll results (Part 1)

Not quite 300 folks voted in last week's poll.  Several readers wrote that they thought it was a mistake to include generalist journals that publish some moral/political papers along with the specialist journals; others pointed out omissions, including Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Social Theory & Practice, Res Publica, and Social Philosophy & Policy.  In light of these concerns, I will run a second poll shortly with only specialty journals in moral and/or political philosophy.  But here are the top 25 from the first poll (I've put an * next to those journals that are specialty journals in these areas):

1. *Ethics  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. *Philosophy & Public Affairs  loses to Ethics by 151–66

3. Philosophical Review  loses to Ethics by 180–29, loses to Philosophy & Public Affairs by 147–60

4. Journal of Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 200–18, loses to Philosophical Review by 102–58

5. Nous  loses to Ethics by 195–18, loses to Journal of Philosophy by 93–72

6. Philosophy & Phenomenological Research  loses to Ethics by 200–18, loses to Nous by 86–76

7. Mind  loses to Ethics by 195–16, loses to Philosophy & Phenomenological Research by 84–77

8. *Journal of Political Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 202–20, loses to Mind by 99–86

9. Philosophical Studies  loses to Ethics by 210–11, loses to Journal of Political Philosophy by 104–85

10. Australasian Journal of Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 209–14, loses to Philosophical Studies by 101–62

11. Philosopher's Imprint  loses to Ethics by 205–12, loses to Australasian Journal of Philosophy by 84–82

12. *Journal of Moral Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 212–13, loses to Philosopher's Imprint by 90–84

13. *Utilitas  loses to Ethics by 207–15, loses to Journal of Moral Philosophy by 102–75

14. Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Ethics by 206–14, loses to Utilitas by 88–81

15. *Ethical Theory and Moral Practice  loses to Ethics by 213–14, loses to Philosophical Quarterly by 92–84

16. *Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 211–10, loses to Ethical Theory and Moral Practice by 96–76

17. *Politics, Philosophy & Economics  loses to Ethics by 203–15, loses to Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy by 94–80

18. Canadian Journal of Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 212–6, loses to Politics, Philosophy & Economics by 84–79

19. *Journal of Ethics  loses to Ethics by 210–10, loses to Canadian Journal of Philosophy by 96–70

20. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society  loses to Ethics by 210–8, loses to Journal of Ethics by 89–73

21. American Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Ethics by 202–11, loses to Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society by 72–66

22. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Ethics by 208–6, loses to American Philosophical Quarterly by 69–54

23. European Journal of Philosophy  loses to Ethics by 208–12, loses to Pacific Philosophical Quarterly by 72–63

24. Ratio  loses to Ethics by 211–10, loses to European Journal of Philosophy by 71–70

25. *Journal of Value Inquiry  loses to Ethics by 209–10, loses to Ratio by 83–52

Oseroff apologizes to Professor Stock and others for his on-line conduct

Here.  Good for him!

ADDENDUM:  A reader points out that Mr. Oseroff has deleted his apology.  Here is the full text:  "I have seen many comments shared online, even in the philosophy community, that I have found objectionable because I believed they targeted the trans community in  the weeks leading up to the Gender Recognition Act consultation.  I responded to these comments in ways that singled out individuals that shared these messages.  I can understand how hurtful my comments are to receive.  I deeply regret the way I responded and will not do it again.  I apologize to Professor Stock and others who may have been hurt by my comments."  I do not know why Mr. Oseroff deleted the apology; perhaps because it was insincere, as his subsequent conduct, unfortunately, suggests.

 

Bolsonaro, the Brazilian fascist

The stuff that comes out of this piece of garbage's mouth would make Trump blush (or at least feel a bit embarrassed in front of Javanka).  He is certainly on a continuum representative of the futile efforts of capitalist democracies to cope with the pathologies of economic life under capitalism, but he is not simply a rhetorical fascist.  Good wishes to the people of Brazil!  And for Americans, the key lesson is this:  if the Democratic Party were actually to become a party representing the vast majority, and not simply the prudent wing of the ruling class, we can expect a similar phenomenon.

America is doomed, part 411: bigotry & guns edition

A white supremacist murders two African-Americans  in cold blood in a Louisville supermarket because of their race.  A NeoNazi anti-semite murders eleven Jews in cold blood in their Pittsburgh house of worship because of their religion.  That's just the last few days!  Surely the intense media coverage will inspire similar armed bigots in this benighted country.  What we need to fight is not "hate"--which is a universal and often useful emotion--but racial and religious bigotry and dehumanization.  But that's hard to do when the nominal President of the United States is a racial and religious bigot himself.

Hate crimes by Trump supporters

It's a long list.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Grand Theft, 'Ben the Rat Meets Led Zeppelin,' 1972

This raw power trio emerged from Mercer Island in the state of Washington, to record one wild album and then disappear.  This is the closing track:

 

BU's Paul Katsafanas interviewed...

...at 3AM.  An interesting interview; I agree with some things he says, disagree pretty strongly with some others.

On 'harassment': a guide for beginners (and cry-babies)

If someone is criticized for their public actions or speech, that is not "harassment":  that is criticism.   

Examples of harassment would include, e.g., becoming the target of on-line mobbing by hundreds of philosophers; being targetted with verbal abuse, such as obscenities, sexual or sexist remarks, racist or other ethnic slurs, and other derogatory epithets; being framed for or falsely impliciated in wrongful or criminal acts; receiving death wishes ("I can't wait until you're dead") or threats of death or violence ("You better watch your back, we're gonna get you").

I have been harassed in all these ways, and others, and I am not alone in having been so harassed.  To the other victims of actual harassment, my sympathies.  To those confusing criticism with harassment:  grow up!  Criticism will continue.

CEU moving MA and PhD programs to Vienna beginning in 2019-20... (MOVING TO FRONT, UPDATED)

...in light of on-going harassment by the fascist governent n Hungary.  European Union, where are you?

Readers with more information can post links or comments, below.

UPDATE:  Philosopher Tim Crane (CEU) comments on these developments.  See also the informative comment, below, by philosopher Katalin Balog (Rutgers).

Co-author of APA Code of Conduct violates it, without embarrassment

The APA Code of Conduct, with its violation of the academic freedom rights of faculty, was always an absurd document.  But one might have thought at least those responsible for it would care about it.  Apparently not!

One co-author of the Code, philosopher Yolonda Wilson (Howard), while disagreeing with my views about the APA, decided she also needed to do so by deeming me a "mediocre-ass white man."  (We shall bracket the inaptness of the characterization, apart from the "man" bit.)  Let's note some of the provisions of the Code Professor Wilson helped write which this seems to violate:

1.  Section IV, regarding "Electronic Communications," provides that "it’s best to avoid ad hominem arguments and personal attacks, especially if they amount to slander, libel, and/or sexual harassment and "Language used in professional electronic communications should use the same kind of inclusive language and reflect the same kind of mutual respect as is expected in the classroom or other face-to-face interactions."  Professor Wilson might defend her use of personal attacks and lack of mutual respect and inclusive language by noting that this was not a professional communication (although its subject was a matter of professional concern) and perhaps it was not made from her Howard University computer.  (I note in passing that in response to my pointing out her hypocrisy, she offered as a defense the claim that she would "say it to my face."  I admire that forthrightness, though if anything would violate the APA Code of Conduct, surely it would be face-to-face abuse with epithets...one hopes!)

2.  Section V, on "Bullying [sic] and Harassment," purports to apply to conduct by APA members not simply towards colleagues and students but "others in the profession."  This is specifically said to prohibit "any degrading, hostile, or offensive conduct or comment by a person towards another that the person knew or reasonably ought to have known would cause the target to be humiliated, intimidated, or otherwise gratuitously harmed. Typical examples of bullying and harassment include verbal aggression" and "calling someone conventionally derogatory names or using derogatory stereotypes to describe them."  Obviously Professor Wilson is in plain violation of this provision of the Code.  Professor Wilson, however, explained that she was not being hypocritical in her conduct because, "Truth-telling is not hypocritical."  Now in the Code as written, there is clearly no exception for "truth-telling" via verbal aggressionn and the use of derogatory names and stereotypes.  But for those originalists out there, please take note:  according to one of the framers, none of these provisions apply when one takes onself to speak truthfully!

Shall we hold our breath to see whether any officer of the APA deigns to condemn this violation of the Code by an APA member involved in drafting it?  Of course not!

Australia, inspired no doubt by Hungary, vetoes peer-reviewed humanities funding

What a total disgrace.  Someone in the Australian government who isn't a fascist better find a way to restore these grants:  the damage to the international standing of Australian universities will be terrible. 

Should scholars avoid citing the work of bad people (e.g., sexual harassers, anti-semites)?

My latest Academic Ethics column at the Chronicle of Higher Education takes up the topic. Some examples, unsurprisingly, are drawn from philosophy, but the issue is arising in many fields.

More reactionary Christian viciousness

Justice Department defends anti-trans discrimination by businesses.

Will this year *really* be a good job market for specialists in the post-Kantian Continental traditions?

Last year was shaping up to be, but in the end several of the places advertising hired in other areas or didn't hire at all.  (The excellent Samantha Matherne got some of the offers, and I was delighted an excellent student of mine also secured a tenure-track job--but overall, last year did not live up to promise for Continental candidates.)   But a job seeker this year writes:  "In glancing over this year's job ads, I get the impression that the trend continues to hold. By my count, there are jobs expressing serious interest in this area at Yale, UC Riverside (full prof.), Fordham, Boston College, Loyola Marymount, U. Mich/Dearborn, Vassar, McMaster, University College Dublin (4-year post-doc). Other ads voice interest in this area, even if they don't list it is as an AOS/AOC."  Let's hope so. The last two centuries of philosophy in Continental Europe are easily the most important and relevant in the last five hundred.  In the midst of all the diversity blather, we should remember that huge swaths of Western philosophy--the last two centuries of Continental European philosophy, not to mention medieval philosophy--are regularly ignored in Anglophone philosophy departments.  

The real dangers of a reactionary U.S. Supreme Court

This is a well-informed explanation of what's at stake from a colleague of mine who is far to my right, but also very far from being a reactionary maniac!

Best journals for moral and political philosophy?

Philosopher Peter Vallentyne (Missouri) suggested it might be worthwhile to once again run some reader polls on the best journals in vaarious areas.  I'll start with the best journals for moral and political philosophy:  this includes some generalist journals that regularly publish moral and/or political philosophy papers, as well as specialist journals.  Rank order them based on the quality of the work they publish in moral and political philosophy.  There are 34 choices; unfortunately, new choices can't be added once the poll has started, but hopefully there are no egregious omissions.

Where blog readers live

Thanks to the nearly 1500 readers who participated in the poll about where readers live.  Here are the results (remember that "Scandinavia and Norway" should really be "the Nordic countries"):

Readers, where do you live?
Selection		Votes
United States	50%	724
United Kingdom or Ireland	10%	149
Canada	9%	130
Australia or New Zealand	4%	53
Germany or Austria	5%	66
France	1%	20
Italy	1%	12
Scandinavia or Norway	4%	56
China	1%	15
Japan	1%	11
Russia	1%	9
Mexico	0%	7
Brazil	1%	10
Israel	1%	10
India	1%	11
Pakistan	0%	6
Singapore	1%	16
Other European country	5%	79
Other Central or South American country	1%	9
Other Asian country	2%	24
Other Middle Eastern country	1%	10
Africa	1%	17
1,444 total

I see I didn't entirely gauge correctly the countries to feature.  I was pleasantly surprised by the large minority of German-speaking readers.  I'd love to hear from those in Africa and the "other" categories what country you do live in.  Thanks to all for reading!  (Typepad, the blog service provider, isn't working very well today, so submit your comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.)

Interviews with philosophers of action

Lots of them at this website!  (Link now fixed.)

Nominations are currently open for APA leadership positions--until October 31

A propos this, Professor Kaufman tells me that one correspondent wrote him pointing out that the APA is presently accepting nominations for leadership positions.  Nominators and nominees must be APA members.  The philosopher who wrote Kaufman suggested that it might be good to identify a slate of candidates concerned with some of the issues we have been discussing.  This would include candidates with a robust commitment to free speech and academic freedom (including opposition to the irresponsible Code of Conduct issued by the APA); who will prioritize institutional and professional issues facing academic philosophy; and who believe that the current APA is overly-invested in diversity issues to the exclusion of equally or more pressing matters.  (To be clear, candidates can of course be supporters of affirmative action, as I am, but still think the APA needs to prioritize other issues.)

If you are an APA member, and share these concerns, and are willing to be nominated and serve, please feel free to post a comment below or to e-mail Prof. Kaufman.  If we move quickly, we might be able to produce a slate of candidates that readers can vote on.  (I should add that when the slate of nominees becomes public, I'll also run a separate thread highlighting those candidates who have been on the wrong side of these issues:  e.g., those who signed the Tuvel letter, or were involved with the Code of Conduct, etc.)

How long before Trump says openly, 'Yeah, I'm proud to be white'?

Can't be that long.

Readers, where (in what country) do you live?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY:  Thanks to the more than 1100 readers who have already voted; if you've not yet participated, please do so!  Thank  you.

=========

I chose particular countries to list based on the data I do have about where readers come from; apologies to those readers whose individual countries are not listed.  Please choose the relevant region of the world instead; I'll open comments after the poll is closed for readers to identify the specific countries.  Thank you.   (CORRECTION:  I got confused about "Scandinavia," which I thought included Finalnd but not Norway, but it's the reverse--so please just treat that category as "the Nordic countries":  Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark.  I can't fix it in the poll itself once it starts, unfortunately.)

Readers, where do you live?

United States

 

United Kingdom or Ireland

 

Canada

 

Australia or New Zealand

 

Germany or Austria

 

France

 

Italy

 

Scandinavia or Norway

 

China

 

Japan

 

Russia

 

Mexico

 

Brazil

 

Israel

 

India

 

Pakistan

 

Singapore

 

Other European country

 

Other Central or South American country

 

Other Asian country

 

Other Middle Eastern country

 

Africa

 

 

pollcode.com free polls

'Philosophy of Hunting'...

...at St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta.  As they say, philosophy is about everything in principle!

(Thanks to Robert McGarvey for the pointer.)

Not-so-crypto fascists in Hungary eliminate "Gender Studies" programs in universities

IHE has the details. Domestic fascists are already expressing pleasure about this, since "academic freedom," well who cares?

If the EU doesn't kick out Hungary and Poland, it will really turn out to be a toothless entity.

Regarding an alternative to the APA

A propos our earlier discussion, philosopher Daniel Kaufman (Missouri State) has volunteered to be the point person for those interested in working on this.  You can reach him at DanielKaufman-at-MissouriState-dot-edu.  I'll of course post updates and information as things progress.

On living with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Read this essay.  Very honest and illuminating.  (I knew the author when he was a PhD student in philosophy at UT Austin.  He was a smart young man, facing a lot of challenges that he describes briefly in this essay.)

Physics and reality

Philosopher Nancy Cartwright (Durham/UC San Diego) discusses with a physicist as well as the owner of IAITV, Hilary Lawson, who really puts himself in far too many of these discussions with experts.

Reader mail

This one was quite funny, from longtime reader Michael Bramley in the U.K.:

As a longtime reader of your philosophy blog (10+ years) I wanted to write a note of thanks for your tireless coverage of these permanently furious, bloodthirsty dogmatists on the Left that give the rest of us (on the same side!) such a bad name. I referring to all this crap about diversity and New Infantilism and of course the nonsense on stilts regarding Tuvel and Stock.

One wonders what bile these True Believers would produce if you *weren't* shining a light on these specimens of slave revolt! Despite my love for medical statistics, here is one situation where I am truly glad there is no control group!

2 350 years ago, Aristotle wrote that, 'To entertain a thought without accepting it is the mark of an educated mind.' In 2018, even entertaining a hypothetical (that is contrary to the party line) is the mark of the devil . This is how the world ends, then: not with a bang, but with a hashtag. (And this is what we're trying to send to Mars?!)

I suspect the item last week on Professor Trott's hypocrisy prompted this, but he raises a good question:  namely, if someone were not shining a very public light on their misconduct, their hypocrisy, their mobbing, their attempts to suppress ideas and speech, would they be doing even worse?  It's hard to imagine what that would be, but maybe vocal opposition does slow them down a bit.  It is at least, as I know from much correspondence, helpful to the targets of the thought police to know they have much support.

Blast from the past: More Nonsense Rankings

Back in 2014, but, remarkably, some people continue to produce similarly misleading "information."  Why are some people so indifferent to the well-being of undergraduate students?  (And see this and this.)

Today in Trump Administration viciousness...

...a proposal to basically strip transgender people of Title IX legal protections from discrimination.   This is evangelical Christianity as public policy.  Whether the courts will go along with such a proposal remains to be seen:  many courts have already held that Title IX applies to discrimination based on gender identity.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Jo Jo Gunne, 'Run, Run, Run,' 1972

This Los Angeles band had a top forty hit with this song from their debut album in 1972; I'd never heard it, however, until recently:

 

Saudi Arabia should hire a more experienced Mafia lawyer...

...before putting out transparent bullshit press releases like this.   Even John Gotti would have been embarrassed!

Sussex's Kathleen Stock interviewed...

...at 3AM.

Open letter on the case of Lara Alqasem, denied a visa to study in Israel (UPDATED)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM OCTOBER 12--UPDATED

Philosopher David Enoch (Hebrew U) asked me to share this open letter (written by him, Tamar Hess, and Amos Goldberg), which I am glad to do:  Download Letter to International Colleagues Lara AlQassem3

Note that the letter includes concrete suggestions that concerned citizens elsewhere can take to put pressure on Israel to reverse its decision.

UPDATE:  Some good news, the Israeli Supreme Court has acceoted Ms. Alqsem's appeal of her exclusion and will permit her to enter Israel.  (Thanks to David Enoch for the update.)

Open-access journal 'Ergo' seeks managing editors

The out-going editors, Franz Huber and Jonathan Weisberg, asked me to share the following, which I'm happy to do in support of open-acess publishing:

We are looking for qualified candidates to become managing editors of Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, effective July 1, 2019. Ben Bradley (Syracuse) and Alastair Wilson (Birmingham) have generously volunteered to serve. We welcome applications that propose to complete this team, but also applications that propose their own, distinct team (e.g. for logistical or funding reasons).

Responsibilities include handling the day-to-day editorial business including the recruitment of area editors; managing copy-editing and production and publication; securing funding; and maintaining the editorial management system. Information about the journal, including its mission and policies, as well as statistics, can be found here:

https://www.ergophiljournal.org/
https://www.ergosubmissions.org/

Interested individuals and groups are asked to get in touch with Jonathan Weisberg and Franz Huber at: {jonathan.weisberg, franz.huber}@utoronto.ca

We will begin evaluating applications November 1, 2018

Professions of the non-academic readers of the blog

MOVING TO FRONT FROM OCTOBER 16--MORE READER RESPONSES WELCOME!

Thanks to more than 600 non-academic readers who responded to the earlier poll; here are the results

on-academic readers, what is your field or profession?
Selection		Votes
Medicine or medical profession	4%	23
Journalism	2%	14
Law or legal profession	20%	122
Librarian	3%	21
Teacher (not at the university level)	8%	47
Engineer or scientist	7%	43
Religion (e.g., minister, rabbi, theologian)	2%	14
Information technology	13%	81
Business or finance	10%	59
Politics or government	6%	39
Writer (fiction, non-fiction, poetry)	4%	27
Other profession	14%	84
None	6%	34

I'll invite comments from readers on a couple of things.  First, I''m curious to hear about the "other professions" that I left out among my choices.  Second, I'd be interested in more details about, e.g., the government work or the IT work etc. that you'd care to provide, since the categories were obviously broad.  Finally, if anyone cares to say why they read (did you study philosophy at one point?  are you here for other stuff?), I'd find that useful.

A reality check on the Oseroff scandal and the APA Blog (UPDATED)

Given that the Twitter Red Guard continue to dissemble and moan about Professor Stock's and my expose of the APA blog scandal, perhaps a reality check is in order.

Nathan Oseroff, a man in his late 20s, who has a prominent on-line position with the American Philosophical Association (that he continuously advertises), took it upon himself to launch a jihad against feminist philosophers, especially philosopher Kathleen Stock (Sussex) who held what he, in his superior wisdom, deemed to be a "morally unacceptable" opinion about the proposed gender self-ID law in the United Kingdom (this law would permit anyone to redesignate their gender for all legal purposes without any medical or other oversight, evaluation or waiting periods).  This man used his role at the APA blog to post a comment attacking Prof. Stock on the APA's blog that violated blog guidelines (the editor in charge of the blog apologized to Prof. Stock, removed the comment and briefly suspended the offender--remarkably, he has not been removed entirely). 

This adult male also took to social media to defame Prof. Stock as someone who directed "hate" at her students and colleagues.  Doing so would be grossly unprofessional conduct, but this man's only evidence for his libelous charge was that Prof. Stock had a different view about the gender self-ID Law in the UK than he did.   In addition, it turns out that this man also abused his role at the APA to "police" the conference practices of a philosophy society that had actually accepted one of his papers, even though the APA, let alone its blog or its editors, has no authority about how professional societies referee papers.

This adult man, who is almost 30 years old, objected that no one should criticize him since he is a PhD student in philosophy. Some of his fellow Twitteratti, endorsed this view (unsurprisingly, they are all similarly situated:  adults in school engaged in stupid on-line conduct!).  

I suggest that Donald Trump should enroll in a PhD program soon, since some segment of the population apparently believes that misconduct is entitled to a free pass if the perpetrator is an adult PhD student.  (Unfortunately for Trump, that segment may consist only of the Twitter Red Guard.)

Irwin to spend one quarter at Stanford for at least the next three years

Terence Irwin (ancient philosophy, ethics), emeritus at both Oxford and Cornell Universities, will be teaching two courses per quarter at Stanford for at least the next three years, starting with the Winter Quarter of 2018-19.  Stanford already has one of the top programs for ancient philosophy in the U.S..

A (mostly) substantive response by three philosophers to arguments put forward by philosopher Kathleen Stock and other gender critical feminists

Here.   I do not ultimately find it persuasive (see this comment by philosopher Sophie Allen [Keele] which identifies a key weakness of the response), but it is mostly serious and substantive (unlike most of the responses to Professor Stock from Nathan Oseroff & the Twitter Red Guard, I. Pohl, Talia Mae Bettcher, L. Mollica, Asia Ferrin et al.) and worth reading for anyone who has been following this debate.  (It goes off the rails towards the end, however, in trying to rationalize the idiotic rhetoric of those who would silence debate--speaking of which, this reaction is representative of the totalitarian mindset in parts of academic philosophy.)

ADDENDUM:  The last link no longer works, but Professor Stock caught a screen shot of this disgraceful performance by philosopher Rebecca Kukla (Georgetown).

Disciplines are the foundation of a university: against the interdisciplinary fad

Jonathan Kramnick, a philosophically-informed English professor at Yale, has a long and generally plausible takedown of the "interdisciplinarity" blather that has now overrun the universities; it is unfortunately behind a paywall, but here's an excerpt:

A discipline is an academic unit. It is neither a naturally occurring category nor an arbitrary relic of the history of higher learning. Rather, a discipline is an evolving body of skills, methods, and norms designed to explain parts of the world worth knowing something about. To recognize the importance of disciplines — to fight for their survival — is therefore to advocate for a picture of the world, an ontology. It is to insist that the world does not have a single order that is adequately captured by, for example, biology or physics or computation.

A pluralistic array of disciplines matches up with a pluralistic vision of the world: endocrine cells for the biologists, tectonic plates for the geologists, librettos for the musicologists, and so on. Pluralism of this variety should put limits on the way disciplines are coordinated. It should insist that no one discipline is reducible to another. It should also provide the foundations for an interdisciplinarity that is interactive, not reductive, one that takes as its premise that each discipline has something to contribute to matters of shared concern in virtue of its own methods and objects. This is an interdisciplinarity worth having....

A cliché sprung from the tech industry and business schools in the mid-’90s to describe how companies can appeal to neglected sectors of the market, "innovation" is now so ubiquitous in academic culture as almost to pass without notice. [Steven] Pinker pairs it however with a sibling piece of corporate jargon — "silo" — that is worth our attention. "If anything is naïve and simplistic," he writes, "it is the conviction that the legacy silos of academia should be fortified and that we should be forever content with current ways of making sense of the world." Surely many readers of this essay have at some point heard a dean or outside consulting agency decry faculty lodged in silos, or departments siloed in tepid irrelevance, each split off from the other. The history of this pejorative and its migration into the lexicon of university administration tells a fascinating story.

Philosopher who participated in the on-line 'harassment' of Rebecca Tuvel has the audacity to lecture others about on-line 'harassment' in philosophy

Adriel Trott (Wabash) apparently has no shame.  Note that this hypocrite is also involved with the APA Blog!  (Perhaps unsurprisingly, Prof. Trott is giving this audacious lecture at a meeting of the SPEP Advocacy Committee.)

I put "harassment" in quotes for the obvious reason:  Trott conflates actual harassment, such as death threats, with on-line "trolling" and no doubt any criticism, at least of her friends and tastes.  Her essay really isn't about harassment, but another tired attempt to whitewash suppression of the views she doesn't like--hence this bit of self-serving blather:   "Only such community projects [like the APA Blog!] can resist posts that draw in traffic and do real [sic] harm by discussing experiences and identities of marginalized groups in philosophically abstract and distant tones as if people’s lives are puzzles."  In her world, the 'harassment' of Professor Tuvel is, no doubt, a model of good community behavior!

(Thanks to several readers who sent this nonsense along.)

UPDATE:  Just to drive home the point that the word 'harassment' doesn't mean anything, we have (who else?) Nathan Oseroff tweeting this morning as follows:

Nathan Oseroff‏ @nathanoseroff 

Can't wait to hear all the established philosophers say they stand with @AdrielTrott after she was harassed by a philosopher after she gave a talk about harassment in philosophy.

4:23 AM - 19 Oct 2018

I'm sure some "established philosophers" do stand with Trott's shameless hypocrisy, no doubt because they share in it.